Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Nevada opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oade v. State
green
2 sentences2015Yet, "lw'hat may be innocuous conduct in some circumstances may constitute prejudicial conduct in a trial setting," Oade, 114 Nev. at 621 , 960 P.2d at 338 (quoting Parodi v. Washoe Med. 2015Yet, "lw'hat may be innocuous conduct in some circumstances may constitute prejudicial conduct in a trial setting," Oade, 114 Nev. at 621 , 960 P.2d at 338 (quoting Parodi v. Washoe Med. | 5 | 2015–2015 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1968As his assignments of error, the appellant contends: (1) That the trial court violated the appellant’s constitutional rights by admitting into evidence the appellant’s confession of July 28, 1966, because the warnings required in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) were not timely and adequately given. (2) That substantial evidence indicated the appellant to be insane, and the trial court erred in accepting a jury verdict finding the appellant guilty of second degree murder. (3) That the trial court failed to rule on the appellant’s capacity to waive his constitutional rights. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.